Jurisprudence Conspiracy

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    1/43

    Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

    Baguio City

    SECOND DIVISION

    ROSIE QUIDET, G.R. No. 170289

    Petitioner,

    Present:

    CARPIO,J., Chairperson,

    - versus - BRION, D! CA"#I!!O,

    PR$, and

    %NDO$A,JJ.

    PEOPLE O T!E P!ILIPPINES, Pro&ulgate':

    Respondent. April (, )*+* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    - -

    D E C I S I O N

    DEL C"STILLO,J.:

    Conspiracy &ust be prove' as clearly an' convincingly as the co&&ission of the

    offense itself for it is a facile 'evice by hich an accuse' &ay be ensnare' an' .ept

    ithin the penal fol'/ In case of reasonable 'oubt as to its eistence, the balance tips infavor of the &il'er for& of cri&inal liability as hat is at sta.e is the accuse's liberty/ 0e

    apply these principles in this case/

    #his Petition for Revie on Certiorari see.s to reverse an' set asi'e the Court of

    Appeals 1CA2 3uly )), )**4 Decision5+6in CA-7/R/ CR No/ )884+ hich affir&e' ith

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn1
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    2/43

    &o'ifications the %arch ++, +999 Decision5)6of the Regional #rial Court 1R#C2 of

    Cagayan 'e Oro City, Branch )* in Cri&inal Case Nos/ 9)-*9 an' 9)-*(*/

    Factual Antecedents

    On 3anuary +8, +99), petitioner Rosie ;ui'et 1petitioner2, onorable Court, the above-na&e' accuse',

    ith intent to .ill, an' ith the use of sharp pointe' instru&ent, an' conspiring, confe'erating an' helping one another, an' ta.ing a'vantage of the

    night 5in6 or'er to facilitate the co&&ission of the offense, 'i' then an' there,

    illfully, unlafully an' feloniously attac., assault, an' stab one An're

    #agar'a thereby hitting his left chest an' nose, the accuse' having perfor&e'

    all the acts of eecution hich oul' pro'uce the cri&e of >o&ici'e as a

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn4
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    3/43

    conse?uence ecept for reason or cause in'epen'ent of the ill of the accuse'

    that is, the stab as 'eflecte' by the victi&/

    CON#RAR@ #O an' in violation of Article )9 in relation to Article

    of the Revise' Penal Co'e/56

    pon arraign&ent, all the accuse' entere' a plea of not guilty in Cri&inal Case

    No/ 9)-*(* 1frustrate' ho&ici'e2/ %eanhile, in Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-*9 1ho&ici'e2,

    #aban entere' a voluntary plea of guilt hile petitioner an' #ubo &aintaine' their

    innocence/ Accor'ingly, on 3une ), +99), the trial court ren'ere' a partial

    =u'g&ent546sentencing #aban to i&prison&ent of si 12 years an' one 1+2 'ay ofprision

    mayor, as &ini&u&, to telve 1+)2 years, to 1)2 &onths an' one 1+2 'ay of reclusion

    temporal,as &ai&u&, an' or'ering hi& to pay the heirs of 3i&&y P4*,***/** as civilin'e&nity/56#hereafter, =oint trial ensue'/

    Version of the Prosecution

    On October +9, +99+, at aroun' (:** ocloc. in the evening, 3i&&y, An're, 'in

    Balani561Balani2, an' Rolan'o %abayo 1%abayo2 visite' a frien' in "itio Punta, !ooc,

    "alay, %isa&is Oriental/ Along the ay, they sa #aban, together ith petitioner an'

    #ubo, co&e out of the house of one #o&as Osep 1Osep2/ #aban su''enly stabbe'

    An're on the chest ith a .nife/An're retaliate' by boing #aban/ 3i&&y trie' to

    pacify An're an' #aban but the latter stabbe' hi& in the ab'o&en/ #aban then

    i&&e'iately fle'/

    %eanhile, after 3i&&y fell 'on, #ubo thre a 'rin.ing glass at An'res face hile

    petitioner boe' An'res =a/ #ubo stabbe' 3i&&y ho as then lying face 'on on

    the groun' tice on the bac. ith an ice pic. after hich he fle'/ Petitioner then boe'

    3i&&ys &outh/ At this =uncture, Balani rushe' to 3i&&ys ai' an' boe' petitioner ho

    retaliate' by punchingBalani/#hereafter, petitioner left the scene/ %abayo as unable to help 3i&&y or

    An're because he as shoc.e' by the inci'ent/

    After the inci'ent, 3i&&y as brought to the clinic of Dr/ Precioso #acan'ang 1Dr/

    #acan'ang2/ 3i&&y as then in critical con'ition, thus, Dr/ #acan'ang a'vise' the

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn8
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    4/43

    relatives of 3i&&y to bring hi& to the Northern %in'anao Regional #raining

    >ospital/ pon arrival at the aforesai' hospital, 3i&&y as 'eclare' 'ea' by the

    atten'ing physician, Dr/ Ce'ric Dael 1Dr/ Dael2/3i&&y sustaine' a vital or &ortal stab

    oun' at the epigastric area four centi&eters belo the cyphoi' process an' another stab

    oun' on the left lu&bar/ An're, ho sustaine' &inor in=uries, as treate' by Dr/Dael/

    Version of the Defense

    On the night of the stabbing inci'ent, #aban, #ubo an' petitioner ere 'rin.ing li?uor in

    the house of Osep/ #aban left the group to urinate on a nearby coconut tree/ Outsi'e

    Oseps house, he as su''enly boe' by An're an' .ic.e' by 3i&&y causing hi& to

    fall near a fishing boat/ #here #aban foun' a fishing .nife ith hich he stabbe' 3i&&yan' An're in or'er to 'efen' hi&self/ After hich, he fle' for fear for his

    life/ %eanhile, petitioner ent out to loo. for #aban/ As he as stepping out of Oseps

    house, he as boe' by Balani/ Petitioner fought bac./An're trie' to help Balani but

    petitioner as able to eva'e An'res attac.s/ Instea', petitioner as able to bo

    An're/ Petitioner then calle' out to #ubo to co&e out an' run/ 0hen #ubo steppe' out

    of the house, neither #aban nor petitioner as present but he sa a person being lifte' by

    several people/ pon seeing this, #ubo, li.eise, fle' for fear for his life/

    Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

    On %ay +, +994, the R#C ren'ere' a =u'g&ent fin'ing petitioner an' #ubo

    guilty of ho&ici'e5(6an' all three accuse' 1petitioner, #ubo an' #aban2 guilty of

    frustrate' ho&ici'e, viz:

    +2 In Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-*9, accuse' Rosie ;ui'et an' Aurelio #ubo

    are hereby sentence', there being no &itigating or aggravating

    circu&stances present, to the penalty of I7># 1(2 @AR" AND ON

    1+2 DA@ O< PRI"ION %A@OR ith its &e'iu& perio' as &ini&u&

    un'er the In'eter&inate "entence !a to

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    5/43

    #ubo6 in this case to an In'eter&inate "entence 5!a6 of

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    6/43

    In uphol'ing the conviction of the accuse' for ho&ici'e, the CA hel' that conspiracy as

    'uly establishe' as shon by the concerte' acts of the accuse' in inflicting &ortal

    oun's on 3i&&y/ >ence, all of the accuse' are guilty of ho&ici'e for the 'eath of

    3i&&y/

    #he CA, hoever, 'isagree' ith the trial courts fin'ing that the accuse' are liable for

    frustrate' ho&ici'e ith respect to the in=uries sustaine' by An're/ Accor'ing to the

    CA, the accuse' faile' to inflict &ortal oun's on An're because the latter successfully

    'eflecte' the attac./ An're suffere' only &inor in=uries hich coul' have heale' ithin

    five to seven 'ays even ithout &e'ical treat&ent/ #he cri&e co&&itte', therefore, is

    &erely atte&pte' ho&ici'e/

    #he CA also 'elete' the aar' of civil in'e&nity to the heirs of An're because the

    sa&e as not fully substantiate'/

    I$$ue

    0hether the Decision of the CA fin'ing petitioner to have acte' in conspiracy

    ith the other accuse' 1#aban an' #ubo2 in the co&&ission of the offenses charge' is in

    accor'ance ith la an'Eor =urispru'ence/5+)6

    Petitioners Argu!ents

    Petitioner clai&s that the evi'ence &erely establishe' that: 1+2 #aban ent out of

    Oseps store hile petitioner an' #ubo re&aine' insi'e 1)2 a co&&otion too. place

    beteen #aban an' An're 182 after this altercation, petitioner an' #ubo steppe' out of

    Oseps store an' 12 petitioners participation in the inci'ent is li&ite' to boing An're

    after the latter ha' alrea'y been stabbe' by #aban, an' boing 3i&&ys &outh after the

    latter ha' been stabbe' by #aban an' #ubo in succession/

    Petitioner insists that it cannot be sai' that he ha' the sa&e cri&inal purpose an'

    'esign as #aban an' #ubo/ >is participation as not necessary to the co&pletion of the

    cri&inal acts because by the ti&e he boe' An're an' 3i&&y, the stabbing ha' alrea'y

    ta.en place/ #he evi'ence further establishe' that the stabbing inci'ent as purely

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn13
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    7/43

    acci'ental an' that the accuse' ha' no gru'ge against the victi&s/ Also, petitioner as

    unar&e' negating his intent to .ill/

    Petitioner also citesPeople v. Vistido5+86here it as rule' that conspiracy as not

    establishe' un'er facts si&ilar to the present case/ In Vistido, the accuse' as &erelyconvicte' of slight physical in=uries/

    Respondents Argu!ents

    Respon'ent conten's that conspiracy as 'uly establishe'/ Petitioner as not

    &erely present 'uring the co&&ission of the cri&e but he ai'e' #aban an' #ubo by

    inflicting blos on An're an' 3i&&y after the latter ere stabbe'/ #he si&ultaneous

    &ove&ent of the accuse' toar's the victi&s an' their successive escape fro& the cri&escene clearly evince conspiracy/ Respon'ent also stresses that the factual fin'ings of the

    trial court shoul' be accor'e' respect for it is in a better position to evaluate testi&onial

    evi'ence/

    Our Ru%&'(

    #he petition is partly &eritorious/

    The existence of conspiracy was not provedbeyond reasonable doubt. Thus, petitioner is

    criminally liable only for his individual acts.

    Conspiracy eists hen to or &ore persons co&e to an agree&ent concerning

    the co&&ission of a felony an' 'eci'e to co&&it it/5+6#he essence of conspiracy is the

    unity of action an' purpose/5+46Its ele&ents, li.e the physical acts constituting the cri&e

    itself, &ust be prove' beyon' reasonable 'oubt/ 0hen there is conspiracy, the act of one

    is the act of all/

    Conspiracy can be inferre' fro& an' establishe' by the acts of the accuse'

    the&selves hen sai' acts point to a =oint purpose an' 'esign, concerte' action an'

    co&&unity of interests/5+6>oever, in 'eter&ining hether conspiracy eists, it is not

    sufficient that the attac. be =oint an' si&ultaneous for si&ultaneousness 'oes not of itself

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn17
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    8/43

    'e&onstrate the concurrence of ill or unity of action an' purpose hich are the bases of

    the responsibility of the assailants/5+60hat is 'eter&inative is proof establishing that the

    accuse' ere ani&ate' by one an' the sa&e purpose/5+(6

    As a general rule, factual fin'ings of the trial court, hich is in a better position toevaluate the testi&onial evi'ence, are accor'e' respect by this Court/ But here the trial

    court overloo.e', &isun'erstoo' or &isapplie' so&e facts or circu&stances of eight

    an' substance hich can affect the result of the case, this Court is 'uty-boun' to correct

    this palpable error for the right to liberty, hich stan's secon' only to life in the hierarchy

    of constitutional rights, cannot be lightly ta.en aay/ In the instant case, e fin' that the

    prosecution faile' to prove beyon' reasonable 'oubt that petitioner conspire' ith #aban

    an' #ubo in co&&itting the cri&es of ho&ici'e an' atte&pte' ho&ici'e/

    Both the trial court an' the CA rule' that the evi'ence 'uly establishe'

    conspiracy/ In particular, the CA note':5#6his Court >O!D" that there as conspiracy/

    0ith respect to Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-*(* 1for frustrate' ho&ici'e2, it

    as reveale' that after An'res chest as stabbe' by #aban, #ubo also thre

    a 'rin.ing glass at An'res face hile 5petitioner6 boe' An'res =as/

    a' it been otherise, #uboan' 5petitioner6 oul' have =ust left the scene of the cri&e/

    0ith respect to Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-*9 1for ho&ici'e2, it as

    reveale' that after An're as stabbe' by #aban using a 'ouble-bla'e' .nife,

    #aban subse?uently stabbe' 3i&&y before fleeing fro& the cri&e scene/

    %o&ents later, hile An're as recovering fro& fist an' glass blos fro&

    5petitioner6 an' #ubo, #ubo 5stra''le'6 3i&&y an' stabbe' hi& tice ith an

    icepic. before 5he6 left/ 5Petitioner6, on the other han', 'elivere' a fist blo to

    3i&&ys &outh notithstan'ing the fact that 3i&&y as alrea'y stabbe' by

    #aban an' #ubo/

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    9/43

    0e 'isagree/ #o 'eter&ine if petitioner conspire' ith #aban an' #ubo, the focus

    of the in?uiry shoul' necessarily be the overt acts of petitioner before, 'uring an' after

    the stabbing inci'ent/

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    10/43

    ho su''enly stabbe' An're/ After he as stabbe', An're state' that he retaliate' by

    boing #aban an' it as only then hen he 1An're2 sa #ubo an' petitioner co&e out

    of Oseps house/5)+6#he recor's of the preli&inary investigation of this case confir& this

    latter version of the events hen An're state' that it as only after the co&&otion

    beteen hi& an' #aban that #ubo an' petitioner steppe' out of Oseps store to help #aban'efen' hi&self in the ensuing fight/5))6"ignificantly, hen the 'efense on cross-

    ea&ination confronte' An're ith this inconsistency beteen his state&ents on 'irect

    ea&ination an' the preli&inary investigation, An're ansere' that at the ti&e of the

    inci'ent it as only #aban that he sa/ 5)86#he sa&e observation can be &a'e on the

    testi&ony of the prosecutions secon' eyeitness, Balani/ 0hile on 'irect ea&ination

    Balani clai&e' that the three accuse' successively ca&e out of Oseps house, on cross-

    ea&ination, he &o'ifie' his stance by stating that it as only #aban ho initially

    accoste' their group an' that petitioner an' #ubo ere insi'e Oseps house prior to theco&&otion/5)6#his &aterial inconsistency in the testi&onies of the prosecutions

    eyeitnesses belies the prosecutions theory that the three accuse' ha' a pre-conceive'

    plan to .ill 3i&&y an' An're/

    #hir', unli.e #aban an' #ubo, petitioner as unar&e' 'uring the inci'ent, thus, negating

    his intent to .ill the victi&s/ By the prosecution itnesses account, petitioners

    participation as li&ite' to boing An're an' 3i&&y after #aban an' #ubo ha' stabbe'

    the victi&s/ >is acts ere neither necessary nor in'ispensable to the co&&ission of the

    cri&es as they ere 'one after the stabbing/ #hus, petitioners act of boing the victi&scan be interprete' as a &ere sho of sy&pathy to or ca&ara'erie ith his to co-

    accuse'/

    #a.en together, the evi'ence of the prosecution 'oes not &eet the test of &oral certainty

    in or'er to establish that petitioner conspire' ith #aban an' #ubo to co&&it the cri&es

    of ho&ici'e an' atte&pte' ho&ici'e/ 0e agree ith petitioner that this case is si&ilar

    toPeople v. Vistido5)46an' the ruling there applies ith e?ual force here/ In Vistido, e

    hel' thus#here is no ?uestion that Ga person &ay be convicte' for the cri&inal act of

    another here, beteen the&, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose

    an' intention in the co&&ission of the cri&e charge'/G It is, li.eise, settle'

    that Gto establish conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove previous agree&ent to

    co&&it a cri&e, if there is proof that the &alefactors have acte' in consort an'

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn26
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    11/43

    in pursuance of the sa&e ob=ective/G Nevertheless, Gthe evi'ence to prove the

    sa&e &ust be positive an' convincing/ As a facile 'evice by hich an accuse'

    &ay be ensnare' an' .ept ithin the penal fol', conspiracy re?uires

    conclusive proof if e are to &aintain in full strength the substance of the

    ti&e-honore' principle in cri&inal la re?uiring proof beyon' reasonable

    'oubt before conviction/GIn the case at bar, the evi'ence for the prosecution 'oes not co&ply

    ith this basic re?uire&ent/ #o begin ith, there is no evi'ence that appellant

    an' his co-accuse' ha' any en&ity or gru'ge against the 'ecease'/ On the

    contrary, the cousin of the 'ecease', Reynal'o Pagta.han, testifie' that prior to

    the stabbing inci'ent, they 'i' not have any ?uarrel ith the&/ In the absence

    of strong &otives on their part to .ill the 'ecease', it can not safely be

    conclu'e' that they conspire' to co&&it the cri&e involve' herein/

    Neither coul' it be assu&e' that hen the appellant an' his co-accuse'

    ere together 'rin.ing ine, at the ti&e an' place of the inci'ent, they ere

    there purposely to ait for an' to .ill the 'ecease'/

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    12/43

    ob=ective/ #hus, the purpose of the latter as to .ill as shon by the fact that

    he inflicte' a &ortal oun' belo the ab'o&en of the 'ecease' hich cause'

    his 'eath/ On the other han', the act of the appellant in giving the 'ecease'

    one fist blo after the latter as stabbe' by the accuse' Pepito %ontao an act

    hich is certainly unnecessary an' not in'ispensable for the consu&&ation of

    the cri&inal assault 'oes not in'icate a purpose to .ill the 'ecease', but &erelyto Gsho offG or epress his sy&pathy or feeling of ca&ara'erie ith the

    accuse' Pepito %ontao/ #hus, inPeople vs. Portuueza, this Court hel' that:

    Although the appellants are relatives an' ha' acte' ith so&e 'egree of

    si&ultaneity in attac.ing their victi&, nevertheless, this fact alone 'oes not prove

    conspiracy/ 1People vs. Caayao, ( Off/ 7a/ 82/ On the contrary, fro& the nature an'

    gravity of the oun's inflicte' on the 'ecease', it can be sai' that the appellant an' theother 'efen'ant 'i' not act pursuant to the sa&e ob=ective/ e &ust have also &a'e the cri&inal resolution

    of his co-accuse' his on/ /

    an', inPeople vs. Vicente, this Court li.eise hel':

    In regar' to appellant rnesto scorpio, there see&s to be no 'ispute that he

    stabbe' "oriano several ti&es ith a s&all .nife only after the latter ha' fallen to the

    groun' seriously oun'e', if not alrea'y 'ea'/ #here is no shoing that this accuse' ha'

    .nole'ge of the cri&inal intent of 3ose Jicente against the 'ecease'/ In all li.elihoo',scorpioHs act in stabbing the fallen "oriano ith a s&all .nife as not in furtherance of

    JicenteHs ai&, hich is to .ill, but &erely to Hsho offH or epress his sy&pathy or feeling

    of ca&ara'erie ith Jicente/ /

    By an' large, the evi'ence for the prosecution faile' to sho the

    eistence of conspiracy hich, accor'ing to the settle' rule, &ust be shon to

    eist as clearly an' convincingly as the cri&e itself/ In the absence of

    conspiracy, the liability of the 'efen'ants is separate an' in'ivi'ual, each is

    liable for his on acts, the 'a&age cause' thereby, an' the conse?uences

    thereof/ 0hile the evi'ence shos that the appellant boe' the 'ecease', it is,

    hoever, silent as to the etent of the in=uries, in hich case, the appellant

    shoul' be hel' liable only for slight physical in=uries/5)6

    0e reach the sa&e conclusion here/

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    13/43

    pay P4,***/** as &oral 'a&ages to the heirs of 3i&&y an' another P4,***/** as &oral

    'a&ages to An're/5)6Actual 'a&ages arising fro& sai' acts cannot, hoever, be

    aar'e' for failure to prove the sa&e/

    Anent the penalty i&pose' on #aban an' #ubo, in Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-*(*, the

    CA correctly &o'ifie' the sa&e/ #he cri&e co&&itte' as atte&pte' ho&ici'e an' notfrustrate' ho&ici'e because the stab oun's that An're sustaine' ere not life-

    threatening/5)(6Although #aban an' #ubo 'i' not appeal their conviction, this part of the

    appellate courts =u'g&ent is favorable to the&, thus, they are entitle' to a re'uction of

    their prison ter&s/5)96#he rule is that an appeal ta.en by one or &ore of several accuse'

    shall not affect those ho 'i' not appeal ecept insofar as the =u'g&ent of the appellate

    court is favorable an' applicable to the latter/58*6

    Anent the aar' of 'a&ages for hich #aban an' #ubo shoul' be &a'e soli'arilyliable, in Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-*9, the trial court properly aar'e' civil in'e&nity in

    the a&ount ofP4*,***/** to the heirs of 3i&&y/ Civil in'e&nity is auto&atically grante'

    to the heirs of the 'ecease' victi& ithout nee' of further evi'ence other than the fact of

    the co&&ission of the cri&e/58+6In a''ition, the trial court shoul' have aar'e' &oral

    'a&ages in the su& of P4*,***/** in consonance ith current =urispru'ence/ 58)6As to

    actual 'a&ages, the prosecution as able to prove burial-relate' epenses ith

    supporting receipt5886only to the etent of P4,***/**/ InPeople v. Villanueva,586e hel'

    that hen actual 'a&ages proven by receipts 'uring the trial a&ount to less

    than P)4,***/**, the aar' of te&perate 'a&ages for P)4,***/** is =ustifie' in lieu ofactual 'a&ages for a lesser a&ount/ 0e eplaine' that it as ano&alous an' unfair that

    the heirs of the victi& ho trie' but succee'e' in proving actual 'a&ages a&ounting to

    less than P)4,***/** oul' be in a orse situation than those ho &ight have presente'

    no receipts at all but oul' be entitle' to P)4,***/** te&perate 'a&ages/5846Accor'ingly,

    an aar' of P)4,***/** as te&perate 'a&ages in lieu of actual 'a&ages is proper un'er

    the pre&ises/ As to loss of earning capacity, the sa&e cannot be aar'e' 'ue to lac. of

    proof other than the self-serving testi&ony of 3i&&ys &other/ In Cri&inal Case No/ 9)-

    *(*, the CA correctly rule' that An're is not entitle' to an aar' of actual 'a&ages for

    failure to substantiate the sa&e/ >oever, he is entitle' to &oral 'a&ages in the a&ount

    of P8*,***/** for the pain, trau&a an' suffering arising fro& the stabbing inci'ent/ 586It

    &ay be note' that the afore-'iscusse' higher in'e&nities are not favorable to #aban an'

    #ubo ho 'i' not appeal, but in line ith our ruling inPeople v. Pacaa,586they shall be

    hel' soli'arily liable therefor since these a&ounts are not in the for& of a penalty/58(6

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/170289.htm#_ftn39
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    14/43

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    15/43

    G.R. No. 99379 April 22, 1994

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.EDUARDO JORGE Y RAIRE!, accused-appellant.

    The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

    Nestor M. Hermida for accused-appellant.

    "ELLOSILLO, J.:

    EDUARDO JORGE Y RAMIREZ appeals fro t!e decision of t!e "ourt a quo findin# !i #uilt$ ofurder and sentencin# !i to reclusion perpetua. 1

    On %& June %'(', an aended inforation )as filed c!ar#in# Eduardo Jor#e, Roeo *a+era andReedios ernales )it! urder for t!e illin# of rancisco /ala )it! t!e a##ravatin#circustances of treac!er$ and evident preeditation. 0o)ever, onl$ Jor#e )as tried 1$ t!e courtaquo 1ecause *a+era and ernales ana#ed to reain at lar#e, alt!ou#! ernales )as eventuall$arrested in Au#ust %''% to face separate trial. 2

    2!e case of t!e #overnent is )oven ainl$ around t!e testion$ of /atricio Ocenar, a barangaytanod of aran#a$ Do3a Ielda, 4ue5on "it$. Ocenar narrates t!at on 67 June %''8, at aroundnine-t!irt$ in t!e evenin#, !e )as at t!e 1aran#a$ !all. 2!en a person infored !i t!at rancisco/ala )as 1ein# olested 1$ t!ree en. 32ain# )it! !i !is 9nife-stic,9 4Ocenar proceeded to /aui:treet pointed to 1$ t!e inforer. 2!ere, at a distance of soe ten ars len#t!, #Ocenar sa) EduardoJor#e and Roeo *a+era !oldin# t!e !ands of /ala and a )oan $sta11in# !i on t!e left c!est )it! alon# instruent. Ocenar could not tell e;actl$ )!at ind of )eapon )as used. 0e s!outed at t!e and allt!ree ran a)a$ leavin# /ala 1e!ind to c!ase!is a##ressors 1ut !e collapsed iediatel$ on alo$ :treet. 7Accordin# toDr. Renato autista )!o e;ained t!e victi, t!e sta1 )ound on !is left c!est )as t!e cause of !isdeat!. %

    "ora5on /ala, )ido) of t!e victi, )as also presented to testif$ for t!e prosecution. ut t!e trialcourt correctl$ discounted !er testion$ to !er !ouse to call !erattention as re#ards !er !us1and, t!e caller said 9"or$, "or$, $our !us1andis stabbed dead and !e is in alo$.9 0ence, !er testion$ t!at s!e sa) !er !us1and1ein# auled and t!en sta11ed does not appear credi1le. 0er testion$ also reads

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    16/43

    lie t!at of Mr. Ocenar )!ic!, considerin# !er interest in t!is case, renders dou1tful!er narration on t!e identit$ of !er !us1and?s illers.

    As t!e court a quo o1served, 9!er testion$ t!at s!e sa) !er !us1and 1ein# auled and t!ensta11ed does not appear credi1le.9 It )as o1viousl$ per+ured. @e can onl$ coiserate )it! t!e)ido) and sa$ to !er, it )as #ood effort in aid of t!e prosecution 1ut it )as not #ood enou#! to

    pervert t!e facts and convince t!e court t!at s!e )as tellin# t!e trut!.

    On t!e part of appellant Jor#e, !e denies an$ participation in t!e crie. 0e clais !e )as sleepin#in !is !ouse at t!e tie of t!e illin# and )as onl$ a)aened )!en policeen, led 1$ t!e )ido),forced !i out of !is !ouse despite !is protestations and profession of innocence, and 1rou#!t to t!epolice station. ut, as earlier entioned, t!e trial court convicted !i of urder )it! a1use ofsuperior stren#t!.

    Jor#e no) iputes ei#!t errors to t!e trial court t!e salient points of )!ic! are =a> in findin# t!eprosecution evidence sufficient to esta1lis! !is #uiltB =1> in #ivin# full fait! to t!e testion$ of /atricioOcenarB =c> in findin# !i #uilt$ of urder as principal )it!out sufficient proof of conspirac$ aon#!i and !is co-accusedB and, =d> in Cualif$in# t!e illin# to urder )it! a1use of superior stren#t!

    )!en suc! circustance is not alle#ed in t!e Inforation.

    Indeed, under t!e facts of t!e case, )e cannot assert )it! oral certaint$ t!at t!e accused is #uilt$of t!e crie c!ar#ed. 2!e evidence for t!e prosecution does not eet t!e Cuantu of proof reCuiredto overcoe t!e constitutional presuption of innocence of t!e accused. @e are not sa$in# !eret!at appellant is innocent 1ut t!at !is #uilt !as not 1een proved 1e$ond reasona1le dou1tB !ence, !es!ould 1e acCuitted.

    In order to convict appellant as a principal 1$ direct participation in t!e case 1efore us, it isnecessar$ t!at conspirac$ aon# !i and !is co-accused 1e proved. o conspirac$ !ere )asesta1lis!ed. "onspirac$B lie an$ ot!er in#redient of t!e offense, ust 1e proved as sufficient as t!ecrie itself t!rou#! clear and convincin# evidence, not onl$ 1$ ere con+ectures. 9/roof 1e$ondreasona1le dou1t is reCuired to esta1lis! t!e presence of criinal conspirac$. 1&In fact, t!e appealeddecision does not ention, uc! less discuss, conspirac$.

    Unit$ of purpose and unit$ in t!e e;ecution of t!e unla)ful o1+ective are essential to esta1lis! t!ee;istence of conspirac$. 11In t!is case, no unit$ of purpose )as s!o)n. 2!e onl$ involveent ofappellant )as !is !oldin# of t!e !and of /ala )!en !e )as sta11ed 1$ ernales on t!e left c!est. 2!ere)as no ot!er evidence to s!o) unit$ of desi#n. 2!e siultaneousness of t!e act of sta11in# t!e victi 1$ernales )it! t!e !oldin# of t!e !and of t!e sae victi 1$ appellant does not of itself deonstrateconcurrence of )ills or unit$ of purpose and action. 12or, it is possi1le t!at t!e appellant !ad nono)led#e of t!e coon desi#n, if t!ere )as an$, nor of t!e intended assault until t!e victi )asactuall$ sta11ed. 2!e t!rust could !ave 1een ade at t!e spur of t!e oent, totall$ une;pected 1$appellant. 2!e ere !oldin# of t!e victi?s !and does not necessaril$ prove intention to ill. If t!e tra#ed$)as a c!ance sta11in#, t!ere can 1e no conspirac$ to spea of. 13/er!aps it )ould !ave 1een different ift!e victi )as sta11ed ore t!an once and appellant still !eld on to t!e !and of t!e victi. 2!at )ould!ave indicated intent to ill and a counit$ of purpose and desi#n. ut t!e evidence does not s!o) t!atappellant ne) t!at ernales !ad a nifeB t!at s!e intended to use it to sta1 t!e victiB and, even if s!e!ad suc! intention and appellant ne) it, t!at !e !eld t!e victi?s !and to insure t!e effectiveness andfatalit$ of ernales? attac.

    @!ile t!e !oldin# of t!e !and of t!e victi could deonstrate unit$ of purpose, $et, it could alsoean a desire on t!e part of appellant to avoid a p!$sical encounter 1et)een /ala and ernales, a)oan, )!o )as not no)n to appellant to 1e ared )it! a nife. 2!e distance of soe ten arslen#t! fro t!e startlin# occurrence could !ave 1lurred t!e vision of Ocenar, t!e onl$ e$e)itness for

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    17/43

    t!e prosecution, )!o could no lon#er identif$ t!e )eapon used e;cept to sa$ it )as a lon#instruent. 2!is also casts dou1t on soe of !is factual accounts. 2!e rule is )ell settled t!at if t!efacts apparentl$ inculpator$ a$ eCuall$ 1e e;plained consistent )it! one?s innocence, t!e evidencedoes not fulfill t!e test of oral certaint$ to support a conviction. 14

    Alt!ou#! Ocenar appears credi1le in !is version, !is testion$ unfortunatel$ does not esta1lis! t!e

    e;istence of conspirac$. It is eleentar$ t!at, in t!e a1sence of conspirac$, eac! of t!e accused isresponsi1le onl$ for t!e conseCuences of !is o)n acts. 1#All t!at appellant did )as to !old t!e !and of/ala, )!ic! is not a crie.

    eit!er can t!e appellant 1e considered a principal 1$ indispensa1le cooperation, nor an accoplicein t!e crie of urder. 2o 1e a principal 1$ indispensa1le cooperation, one ust participate in t!ecriinal resolution, a conspirac$ or unit$ in criinal purpose and cooperation in t!e coission oft!e offense 1$ perforin# anot!er act )it!out )!ic! it )ould not !ave 1een accoplis!ed. 1$In ordert!at a person a$ 1e considered an accoplice, t!e follo)in# reCuisites ust concur =a> counit$ ofdesi#n, i.e., no)in# t!at criinal desi#n of t!e principal 1$ direct participation, !e concurs )it! t!e latterin !is purposeB =1> !e cooperates in t!e e;ecution of t!e offense 1$ previous or siultaneous actsB and,=c> t!ere ust 1e a relation 1et)een t!e acts done 1$ t!e principal and t!ose attri1uted to t!e personc!ar#ed as accoplice.

    2!e cooperation t!at t!e la) punis!es is t!e assistance no)in#l$ or intentionall$ rendered, )!ic!cannot e;ist )it!out previous co#ni5ance of t!e criinal act intended to 1e e;ecuted. 17It is t!ereforereCuired in order to 1e lia1le eit!er as a principal 1$ indispensa1le cooperation, or as an accoplice, t!att!e accused ust unite )it! t!e criinal desi#n of t!e principal 1$ direct participation. 2!ere is indeednot!in# on record to s!o) t!at appellant ne) t!at ernales )as #oin# to sta1 /ala, t!us creatin# adou1t as to appellant?s criinal intent.

    2!e appellant asserts t!at it )as error for t!e trial court to consider 9a1use of superior stren#t!9 asCualif$in# t!e illin# to urder )!en suc! circustance is not alle#ed in t!e Inforation. 2!eaccused is correct, alt!ou#! it could !ave 1een considered nonet!eless as a #eneric a##ravatin#circustance even if not so alle#ed. 1%0o)ever, t!is is no lon#er si#nificant considerin# t!e conclusion

    !erein reac!ed.

    2!e defense of t!e accused is ali1i, )!ic! is t!e )eaest of defenses. ut t!e case a#ainst !i uststill fail since t!e evidence of t!e prosecution is even )eaerB for, as it !as 1een repeated oftenenou#!, t!e conviction of t!e accused ust not rest on t!e )eaness of t!e defense 1ut on t!estren#t! of t!e prosecution. 19

    @0EREORE, t!e decision appealed fro is REER:ED and accused-appellant EDUARDOJORGE Y RAMIREZ is A"4UI22ED of t!e crie c!ar#ed. Accordin#l$, it appearin# t!at !e isdetained, !is iediate release fro custod$ is ordered unless !e is !eld for anot!er cause.

    :O ORDERED.

    Cruz !a"ide #r. $ellosillo %uiason and &apunan ##. concur.

    'Foo()o(*+

    % /enned 1$ Jud#e Jaie . :ala5ar, Re#ional 2rial "ourt, r. %8F, 4ue5on "it$.

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    18/43

    6 Appellant?s rief, p. 6.

    F 2:, %( Januar$ %'(', pp. F-.

    /resua1l$ a 9ni#!t stic.9

    & 2:, %( Januar$ %'(', p. %8.

    7 *ater identified as Reedios ernales, also no)n as 9Ac!e.9

    H 2:, %( Januar$ %'(', pp. &, (-%8, %&.

    ( 2:, 6& Au#ust %'(', p. .

    ' /eople v. MarCue5, o. *-F%8F, % Dece1er %'(%, %%8 :"RA '%.

    %8 /eople v. :aavedra, o. *-(HF(, %( Ma$ %'(H, %' :"RA 7%8.

    %% Orodio v. "ourt of Appeals, o. *-&H&%', %F :epte1er %'((, %7& :"RA F%7.

    %6 U: v. Ma#coot, %F /!il. F(7 =%'8'>.

    %F /eople v. A#apina$G.R. o. HHHH7, 6H June %''8, %(7 :"RA (%6.

    % /eople v. /acana, H /!il. ( =%'6>.

    %& Araneta v. "ourt of Appeals, G.R. o. *-F&6H, F Jul$ %''8, %(H :"RA %6F.

    %7 /adilla, "riinal *a) oo I, %'H Ed., p. &%H.

    %H 'd., p. &6H.

    %( (eople ". GarciaG.R. o. *-F8', F% Octo1er %'H'.

    %' (eople ". CruzG.R. o. (H((, ove1er %''6, 6%& :"RA FF'.

    2!e *a)p!il /ro+ect - Arellano *a) oundation

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    19/43

    G.R. No+. 9&1919$ J-)-r/ 2%, 1991

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.ANA0LETO FURUGGANAN, alias"OY,accused-appellant.

    The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.(ublic )ttorney*s +ffice for accused-appellant.

    REGALADO, J.:

    2!e developental annals of our criinal +ustice s$ste provide certain 1asic rules of #overnance indeterinin# t!e fate of one cau#!t in t!e toils of t!e la). Eleentar$ as t!ese tenets a$ no)appear to 1e, $et t!e$ are not infreCuentl$ overlooed or i#nored. @e are forced to repeat t!e forpurposes of t!is case.

    At 1otto is t!e presuption of innocence,,uris tantumto 1e sure 1ut constitutin# t!e tae-off pointfor criinal actions. Doctrinall$, t!is presuption $ields onl$ to t!e reCuisite Cuantu of evidence of#uilt 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t. An$ dou1t s!all 1e considered in favor of t!e accused. 2!eprosecution !as t!e ine;ora1le 1urden of producin# t!e andated de#ree of proof. 2!e #uilt of t!e

    accused s!all 1e #au#ed 1$ t!e stren#t! of t!e evidence for t!e /eople and not 1$ t!e )eaness oft!at for t!e defense.

    2!is case presents an opportune situation to revie) said precepts )!ic! !old life and li1ert$sacrosanct. On t!e accused !ere !as 1een iposed five =&> sentences of reclusion perpetuafor asan$ cries of urder and an indeterinate sentence for one =%> case of frustrated urder. Even)it! t!e application of Article H8 of t!e Revised /enal "ode, !e faces t!e unnervin# and 1leaprospect of at least fort$ =8> $ears in #aol. 0ence, t!e need for a ost scrupulous and discernin#revie) of t!is case, for alon# )it! t!e possi1ilit$ of deprivin# an innocent an of !is freedo is t!econtrapuntal t!ee of den$in# +ustice to si; =7> !apless victis of t!e said !einous cries.

    In si; =7> different inforations,%!erein accused-appellant, to#et!er )it! Danilo alao alias9E1ot,9Elea5er /a$on#an, Dioedes /alattao, Martin uru##anan and asilio Goer, Jr. )ere c!ar#ed1efore t!e Re#ional 2rial "ourt of "a#a$an, ranc! III, 6in five =&> cases of urder and one =%>case of frustrated urder, for alle#edl$ conspirin# and s!ootin# to deat! *eopoldo Ma#ara, "elsoUrti5, *ucio Ma#ara, Ale+andro Ma#ara and Roeo "ordova and )oundin# Josep! errer on t!eni#!t of Dece1er ',%'(7.

    :u1seCuentl$, on otion of /rosecutin# iscal Rafael *. /acis and supported 1$ an affidavit ofretraction of victi Josep! errer, t!e c!ar#es a#ainst accused Danilo alao alias9E1ot9 in all t!eaforesaid cases )ere disissed. F

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt3
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    20/43

    0erein appellant, to#et!er )it! Martin uru##anan and Dioedes /alattao, on t!e ot!er !and, )erearrai#ned and pleaded not #uilt$ to t!e crie c!ar#edB )!ile accused Elea5er /a$on#an and asilioGoer, Jr. !ad !eretofore and !ave up to no) reained at lar#e. 2!e aforesaid criinal cases )ere

    +ointl$ tried. After t!e prosecution rested its case, !o)ever, t!e court a quo#ranted t!e deurrer toevidence filed 1$ accused Martin uru##anan and Dioedes /alattao and conseCuentl$ acCuittedt!e of all t!e c!ar#es a#ainst t!e.

    2!us, trial proceeded onl$ a#ainst appellant )!o )as t!ereafter found #uilt$ as c!ar#ed and )assentenced to suffer t!e penalt$ of reclusion perpetuain eac! of t!e five =&> cases for urder, and anindeterinate sentence of ten =%8> $ears ofprision mayor, as iniu, to fourteen =%> $ears, ten=%8> ont!s and ten =%8> da$s ofreclusion temporal, as a;iu, for t!e frustrated urder. urt!er,appellant )as ordered to indenif$ t!e !eirs of t!e five =&> victis in t!e urder cases in t!e su of/F8,888.88 for eac! victi and one-fift! =%&> of t!e costs in eac! of t!e si; =7> cases.&

    2!e #enesis of said cases, as verified fro t!e transcri1ed notes of t!e proceedin#s andsuari5ed 1$ t!e :olicitor General in !is 1rief, inclusive of t!e ar#uents of appellant, are asfollo)s

    On Dece1er ', %'(7, Josep! errer, "elso Ur1i5 =sic, Urti5>, *eopoldo Ma#ara, Ale+androMa#ara, *ucio Ma#ara, and Roeo "ordova decided to #o to t!e ricefield of roilan"leente situated at :itan#a, Dodan, Aparri, "a#a$an. 2!e$ arrived at t!e place of roilan"leente at around one o?cloc in t!e afternoon. Upon arrival, t!e$ cast t!eir fis!in# line.

    After a )!ile, t!e$ rested in a nipa !ut =pp. F-, 2:, June %8, %'((>. 2!e$ fell asleep and)!ile in a deep slu1er, t!e prosecution )itness Josep! errer !eard a firin# of a #un ='d.>

    After t!e s!ootin# stopped, soe1od$ cli1ed up t!e !ut and !e sa) Elea5er /a$on#an,asilio Goer and accused-appellant, o$ uru##anan =p. 7, 2:, 'd.> Josep! errerpretended t!at !e )as alread$ dead 1$ placin# !is ri#!t ar over !is fore!ead =p. (,2:, 'd.>

    Josep! errer, )!ile pretendin# to 1e dead, o1served t!at t!e t!ree alefactors, nael$,Elea5er /a$on#an, asilio Goer and accused-appellant )ere ain# sure t!at t!eir victis

    )ere alread$ dead. Elea5er /a$on#an li#!ted a lap and noced t!e !ead of Josep!errer to confir t!at !e )as indeed dead. Josep! errer sa) asilio Goer !oldin# a sall#un and Elea5er /a$on#an an aralite =pp. 7-H, 2:, :ept. 6(, %'((>.

    Elea5er /a$on#an furt!er searc!ed t!e !ut. After satisf$in# t!eselves t!at t!e$ !adaccoplis!ed )!at t!e$ !ad intended, Elea5er /a$on#an, asilio Goer and accused-appellant left t!e scene of t!e crie.

    After t!e assailants !ad left, Josep! errer, t!e lone survivor, )ent !oe despite t!e fact t!at!e sustained )ounds in !is le# leavin# 1e!ind all !is copanions )!o )ere t!en all dead =p.%&, 2:, 'd.>. 0e )as su1seCuentl$ 1rou#!t to t!e !ospital 1$ !is 1rot!er and cousin =pp. %8-%%, 2:, :ept. 6(, %'((>.

    Accused-appellant, on t!e )itness stand, corro1orated t!e testion$ of Josep! errer onaterial points. 0e testified t!at as of ove1er 67, %'(7, !e )as a e1er of t!e "ivil0oe Defense orce ="0D>.

    On Dece1er ', %'(7, at around sunset, Martin uru##anan, also a e1er of t!e "0D,and aran#a$ "aptain Elea5er /a$on#an, asilio Goer, Jr. and Dioedes /alattao, also ae1er of t!e "0D, dropped 1$ t!e !ouse of accused-appellant. 2!e$ invited !i to t!eplace of Elea5er /a$on#an for a drin =pp. (-', 2:, Marc! %7, %'('>.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt5
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    21/43

    Elea5er /a$on#an )as ared )it! a rifle and )as carr$in# t)o 1ottles of #in placed in plastic1a# )!ile asilio Goer )as ared )it! a #arand rifle =p. %F, 'd.>.

    ro t!e !ouse of accused-appellant, t!e$ )ent directl$ to t!e !ut of Elea5er /a$on#an.@!ile t!ereat, Elea5er /a$on#an c!eced !is fis! trap and )as a1le to #et soe fis! fort!eir 9pulutan9 =p. %, 'd.>. After a )!ile, accused-appellant and !is copanions dran t!e

    #in. 2!ereafter, accused-appellant sou#!t perission to #o !oe, 1ut Elea5er /a$on#anprevented !i fro doin# so 1$ tellin# !i t!at t!e$ )ere #oin# soe)!ere else ='d.>.

    Accused-appellant ased Elea5er /a$on#an )!ere t!e$ )ere #oin# and Elea5er /a$on#anreplied t!at accused-appellant, 9not 1e )orr$ =sic> as !e =/a$on#an> )ould 1e responsi1lefor )!at )ill !appen9./phiecause of t!e assurance, accused-appellant follo)ed !i =p.%7, 'd.>.

    ro t!e !ut of Elea5er /a$on#an, t!e$ !ied to t!e !ut of roilan "leente. Upon arrival att!e !ut of roilan "leente, asilio Goer and Elea5er /a$on#an )ent to t!e door of t!e!ut and started firin# t!eir #uns =p. %(, 'd.>. 2!e s!ootin# lasted for a1out t!ree =F> inutesand )!ile /a$on#an and Goer )ere firin# t!eir #uns, accused-appellant, to#et!er )it!uru##anan and /alattao, alle#edl$ sta$ed at t!e 1ac. After t!e s!ootin# Elea5er /a$on#an

    told accused-appellant to follo) !i and )!en !e refused, /a$on#an alle#edl$ aied !is#un to =sic> appellant. /a$on#an told t!e accused-appellant to coe up to see if t!ose insidet!e !ut )ere alread$ dead. 0e )as accordin#l$ t!reatened 1$ /a$on#an 1$ sa$in# t!at !e)ill s!oot !i =accused-appellant> if !e )ill not #o up to =sic> t!e !ut. @!en accused-appellant )ent up t!e !ut, Elea5er /a$on#an and asilio Goer follo)ed !i. @!en t!e$)ere alread$ upstairs, Elea5er /a$on#an sa) a lap and li#!ted it =pp. %'-68, 'd.>.

    Accordin# to accused-appellant, asilio Goer and Elea5er /a$on#an )ould s!ot =sic> an$occupant )!o )as still ovin# =p. 68, 'd.>.

    Elea5er /a$on#an told asilio Goer t!at all t!e occupants of t!e !ut )ere alread$ dead.Accused-appellant )ent do)n iediatel$ after )!ic! asilio Goer and Elea5er /a$on#ane;tin#uis!ed t!e erosene lap and )ent do)n. :u1seCuentl$, t!e$ left t!e !ut. ro )!ere

    t!e incident too place, accused-appellant )ent !oe and told !is )ife )!at !ad !appenedand 1ecause t!e$ )ere afraid, t!e$ slept in t!e !ouse of !is in-la)s =pp. 7-H, Ma$ 6,%'('>. 7

    As e;plained 1$ t!e court a quoin its decision, t!e lone survivor, Josep! errer, testified in t!epreliinar$ e;aination conducted 1$ t!e Municipal 2rial "ourt of Aparri, "a#a$an, ranc! II, onJanuar$ %6, %'(H in its "riinal "ases os. II-H6F', H66 and H6F, t!at !e and !is copanions)ere fired upon in t!e !ut 1$ appellant and !is copanionsB and !e repeated t!is testion$iplicatin# appellant in t!e preliinar$ e;aination conducted on Januar$ %F, %'(H 1$ ranc! I oft!e sae court in its "riinal "ase o. A-H6H. 2!e trial court oreover noted t!at errer ade t!esae identification of appellant as one of t!e assailants in !is purportedante mortemstateenttaen on Dece1er %8, %'(7 in t!e Aparri District 0ospital and also in !is e;tra+udicial stateent

    #iven in t!e course of an investi#ation conducted 1$ /at. /orfirio G. Divina on Dece1er %H, %'(7 int!e sae !ospital.H

    2o e;culpate !iself fro lia1ilit$, appellant in !is 1rief su1stantiall$ reiterates !is version of t!eincident as !erein1efore narrated and alle#es t!at !e )as t!reatened 1$ Elea5er /a$on#an to #o upt!e !ut or else !e !iself )ould 1e s!ot. Over)!eled 1$ said t!reat, appellant clais !e !ad noot!er recourse 1ut to follo) as directed. urt!er, !e )ould lie t!is "ourt to focus its attention on t!etestion$ of prosecution )itness Josep! errer !iself t!at appellant )as unared )!en !e )entup t!e !ut, as in fact !is firear )as surrendered da$s 1efore t!e s!ootin# incident. Anent t!e

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt7
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    22/43

    alle#ation of conspirac$, t!e defense contends t!at t!ere is not even a !int of t!e e;istence of apreconceived plan or a#reeent to coit t!e cries c!ar#ed, appellant !avin# 1een invited onl$1$ !is co-accused to a drinin# session.(

    Appellant adits t!at !e )as a e1er of t!e "ivil 0oe Defense orce 1ut t!at on Dece1er F,%'(7 !e returned to t!e local consta1ular$ !eadCuarters t!e Garand rifle t!eretofore issued to !i.

    0e su1itted as proof t!ereof, as !is E;!i1its % and 6, respectivel$, t!e receipt for t!e rifle si#ned 1$:#t. Antonio M. Doin#o and a certification to t!at effect of "apt. Jaes Andres . Melad, 1ot! ofsaid consta1ular$ unit.

    0ence, assailin# !is conviction 1$ t!e court 1elo), appellant coes to us )it! t!e follo)in#assi#nent of errors

    I. 2!e court a quo#ravel$ erred in #ivin# )ei#!t and credence to t!e t!eor$ of t!eprosecution and in disre#ardin# t!at of t!e defense.

    II. 2!e court a quo#ravel$ erred in findin# t!at t!ere e;ists conspirac$ in t!e case at 1ar.

    III. 2!e court a quo#ravel$ erred in convictin# accused-appellant of t!e cries c!ar#eddespite t!e prosecution?s failure to prove !is #uilt 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t. '

    @e find erit in t!e ar#uents and su1issions of appellant in t!e petition at 1ar.

    As earlier noted, t!e rule is firl$ entrenc!ed t!at a +ud#ent of conviction ust 1e predicated ont!e stren#t! of t!e evidence for t!e prosecution and not on t!e )eaness of t!e evidence for t!edefense. Accusation can never 1e ade s$non$ous )it! #uilt. It is incu1ent on t!e prosecution todeonstrate t!at culpa1ilit$ lies and t!e freedo of t!e accused can 1e forfeited onl$ if t!e reCuisiteCuantu of proof necessar$ for conviction is in e;istence. %8

    In t!e present case, )e find t!e evidence for t!e prosecution leavin# uc! to 1e desired "is-a-

    "ist!e oral certitude e;acted 1$ la) to prove t!e #uilt of t!e appellant. /at!eticall$, said evidence)!ic! consisted priaril$ of t!e testion$ of t!e lone survivor, Josep! errer, is replete )it!irreconcila1le inconsistencies )!ic! are neit!er triflin# nor uniportant as to 1e of littleconseCuence.

    2!us, )!ile t!e trial court noted t!at errer on t!e t)o occasions )!en !e )as under preliinar$e;aination testified t!at !e sa) appellant and !is copanions fire upon t!e !ut )!ere !e and !isfriends )ere restin#, !e t)ice cate#oricall$ declared in open court t!at t!e$ )ere all fast asleep)!en !e !eard a sudden 1urst of #uns!ots. %%One can onl$ )onder !o) errer could !ave)itnessed t!e firin# fro outside )!en !e )as, as !e stated, in deep slu1er. 2!is disposes oferrer?s stateent in !is so-called ante mortemstateent %6and !is e;tra+udicial stateent 1efore/at. /orfirio G. Divina%Ft!at !erein appellant )as one of t!ose )!o s!ot !i and !is copanions ont!at occasion.

    More tellin# is errer?s prevarications in !is aforesaid purported ante mortemstateent ande;tra+udicial stateent )!ere !e positivel$ stated t!at appellant )as ared )it! an aralite. 2!is)as o1viousl$ intended to support !is stor$ t!at appellant also fired fatal s!ots in t!at incident.Durin# t!e trial, !o)ever, !e diaetricall$ contradicted !iself and declared not onl$ once 1ut t)ice,on direct e;aination and cross-e;aination, t!at appellant )as definitel$unared. %/arent!eticall$, !is alle#ed ante mortemstateent clearl$ cannot Cualif$ as suc!, not!avin# 1een ade under t!e consciousness of an ipendin# deat!, t!e in+uries !e sustained )!ic!

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt14
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    23/43

    )ere all in t!e lo)er e;treities not 1ein# fatal.%&Even considered as suc!, its credi1ilit$ and )ei#!tare su1+ect to t!e sae rules as an$ ot!er testionial evidence%7and, as )e !ave alread$ seen,said )itness !as !iself esta1lis!ed t!e falsit$ of !is pertinent declarations t!erein.

    On direct e;aination, errer furt!er testified t!at !e sa) appellant, Elea5er /a$on#an and asilioGoer, Jr. coe up t!e !ut and verif$ )!et!er or not t!eir victis )ere dead. In fact, !e identified

    appellant in open court and declared t!at /a$on#an and Goer )ere not present. %HUponcontinuation of t!e e;aination on a different date, !o)ever, !e stated t!at it )as appellant,/a$on#an and one Dioedes /alattao )!o )ent up t!e !ut to ae t!e verification.%(2!is is not +usta inor or insi#nificant error since, in t!e ver$ nature of t!is case, identification of t!e supposedalefactors is essential. ut ore iportant, on t!e 1asis of t!e fore#oin# discussions, is t!eindisputa1l$ vital conclusion t!at Josep! errer is not t!e relia1le and !onest )itness on )!oseuncorro1orated testion$ t!e fate of appellant can +ustl$ 1e ad+ud#ed 1$ t!is "ourt.

    @!ile appellant aditted t!at !e )as )it! t!e ot!er accused and )as at t!e scene of t!e crie ont!e fateful ni#!t of t!e incident, !e nevert!eless re1uts t!e iputation of #uilt a#ainst !i 1$aintainin# t!at !e !ad no inlin# of t!e urderous desi#n of !is co-accused < !e !avin# 1eeninvited onl$ for a drin < and t!at !e )ent up t!e !ut onl$ 1ecause !e )as t!reatened at #unpoint to

    do so or else !e !iself )ould 1e s!ot. @e !ave carefull$ scrutini5ed and )ei#!ed appellant?stestion$ 1ot! durin# !is direct e;aination and cross-e;aination%'and find t!at !e !ad declaredt!e sae facts and aintained t!e sae t!eor$ )it! fort!ri#!tness and consistenc$ under ri#idinCuisition.

    Of course, it a$ 1e a possi1ilit$ t!at at t!e outset appellant and !is copanions !ad nopreconceived urderous plan and it )as onl$ durin# t!e drinin# session or at an$ tie 1et)eensuc! session and t!e actual assacre t!at t!e$ a#reed to coit t!e crie. An$ aount of relianceon suc! pro1a1ilit$, !o)ever, )ould 1e purel$ speculative and a departure not onl$ fro t!eesta1lis!ed facts 1ut also t!e settled doctrinal rule t!at surises and con+ectures !ave no place in a

    +udicial inCuir$ and are speciall$ anat!ea in a criinal prosecution. 2!us, alt!ou#! siilarl$circustanced as appellant 1efore and durin# t!e coission of t!e cries, t!e ot!er ori#inalaccused Danilo alao, Martin uru##anan and Dioedes /alattao )ere cleared of an$ coplicit$ in

    or lia1ilit$ for t!e ultiple ill in#s. 2!is cannot 1ut constitute an evident repudiation of t!e conspirac$t!eor$ insofar as appellant and t!e ot!ers )!o erel$ accopanied Goer and /a$on#an areconcerned.

    urt!erore, albeitno foral a#reeent is necessar$ to prove conspirac$ and t!e sae a$ 1einferred fro t!e circustances attendin# t!e coission of t!e crie, $et conspirac$ ust 1eesta1lis!ed 1$ t!e sae Cuantu of evidence as an$ ot!er in#redient of t!e offense. :uc! evidenceust s!o) intentional participation in t!e transaction )it! a vie) to t!e furt!erance of t!e coondesi#n or purpose. 2!e sae de#ree of proof necessar$ to esta1lis! t!e crie is reCuired toesta1lis! a findin# of criinal conspirac$, t!at is, proof 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t. It cannot 1eesta1lis!ed 1$ con+ectures 1ut 1$ positive and conclusive evidence.68:ince conspirac$ ust 1eproved 1e$ond peradventure of a dou1t, it follo)s t!at it cannot 1e appreciated )!ere t!e facts can

    1e consistent )it! t!e non-participation of t!e accused in t!e fancied ca1al.

    In t!e case at 1ar, t!e fact t!at appellant )as )it! t!e ot!er accused )!en t!e crie )as coittedis not sufficient proof of t!e e;istence of conspirac$. Mere copanions!ip does not esta1lis!conspirac$. 6%eit!er can conspirac$ 1e inferred fro t!e ere fact t!at t!e$ !ad 1een drinin#to#et!er prior to t!e s!ootin#. 66It strains credulit$ to assue t!at, on t!ese antecedents alone,appellant readil$ enlisted in a urderous cliCue )it!out an$ proven otive on !is part and a#ainstvictis )!ose relations )it! !i, anta#onistic or ot!er)ise, !ave not even 1een s!o)n.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt22
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    24/43

    o conspirac$ can oreover 1e deduced )!ere t!ere is a1solutel$ no s!o)in# t!at appellantperfored an$ overt act of s!ootin# alt!ou#! !e )as )it! t!e persons )!o fired t!e #uns. Indeed,t!e onl$ incriinatin# evidence a#ainst appellant is t!at !e )as at t!e scene of t!e crie, 1ut t!ereason for !is presence )as itself sufficientl$ e;plained 1$ !i as !eretofore stated and t!e sae!as not 1een successfull$ refuted. :i#nificantl$, appellant, 1$ !is act of #oin# up t!e !ut, cannot also1e said to !ave lent in an$ )a$ even a )!it of aterial or oral aid in t!e actual coission of t!e

    cries c!ar#ed as, 1$ t!en, said cries !ad alread$ 1een consuated.

    @e tae +udicial co#ni5ance at t!is +uncture of t!e fact on record t!at t!e prosecution filed a otion1elo) for appellant?s disc!ar#e to ae !i a state )itness. 62!e trial court denied t!e otion ont!e #round t!at appellant appears to 1e t!e ost #uilt$ )it!out, !o)ever, an$ credita1le e;planationfor so !oldin#, 1e$ond a cavalier advertence to t!e e;istence of t!e aforesaid discreditede;tra+udicial stateents of prosecution )itness Josep! errer.6&

    inall$, it s!ould 1e o1served t!at fli#!t as an indication of #uilt67cannot lie)ise 1e appreciatedfro t!e fact t!at appellant left to#et!er )it! !is co-accused after t!e s!ootin# incident or fro t!ecircustance t!at !e and !is fail$ oved to t!e residence of !is in-la)s on t!e follo)in# da$. Ase;plained 1$ !i, !e feared for t!e safet$ and securit$ of !is fail$ a#ainst t!e t!reat ade 1$ !is

    co-accused t!at !e !iself )ould 1e illed s!ould !e tell an$1od$ a1out t!e urders. 2!is t!reata$ )ell 1e t!e sae reason for appellant?s failure to proptl$ report t!e incident to t!e properaut!orities, not to ention t!e natural reticence of people to #et involved in or 1e dra##ed into acriinal investi#ation. 6HIn an$ event, t!ere is no s!o)in# t!at !e intentionall$ ade !is presencescarce in !is counit$ as in fact !e )as arrested in t!e counit$?s aretplace. 6(

    All told, )e !old t!at t!e evidence a#ainst appellant Anacleto uru##anan is not sufficient toesta1lis! !is participation or culpa1ilit$ in t!e alle#ed criinal conspirac$. Indeed, even if it issupposed t!at appellant?s defense is not copletel$ )ort!$ of credence, t!e !ard and indeli1le trut!reains t!at t!e evidence for t!e prosecution is uc! less so, )it! all its fla)s and ipro1a1ilities."ertainl$, to stress t!e o1vious, an$ dou1t as to t!e #uilt of t!e accused s!ould 1e resolved in favorof t!e presuption of !is innocence. or, to parap!rase adictumof ancient respecta1ilit$ )!ic! t!is"ourt !as adopted )it! approval and consistenc$, it is 1etter to let t!e #uilt$ #o scot-free t!an to

    convict an innocent person. 6'

    "onsiderin# t!at in an adversarial criinal contest, t!e forces and po)ers of t!e state arears!alled a#ainst an accused )!o is often !andicapped in an$ )a$s in t!e preparation andpresentation of !is defense, t!e protective rules recited at t!e outset of t!is opinion ust 1e #ivenfull s)a$ in our ad+udication of t!is case in order to ae eCual t!at )!ic! is 1asicall$ uneCual. @e!ave done so and )e are convinced t!at a verdict of acCuittal rests secure in t!e !ands of +usticeand eas$ on t!e conscience of t!e "ourt.

    @0EREORE, t!e decision appealed fro is REER:ED and :E2 A:IDE and t!e accused-appellant is !ere1$ A"4UI22ED on t!e #round of reasona1le dou1t, )it! costs de oficio.

    :O ORDERED.

    Melencio-Herrera (aras (adilla and Sarmiento ##. concur.

    Foo()o(*+

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#rnt29
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    25/43

    %"riinal "ases os. III-'', III-&88, III-&8%, III-&%8, III-&F( and III-&F'B 0ollo, 68-F%.

    6/resided over 1$ Jud#e elipe R. 2uacder.

    FOri#inal Record, "riinal "ase o. III-&%8, 8.

    Ori#inal Record, "riinal "ase o. III-&F', %(-6%.

    &0ollo, &'.

    7rief for t!e Appellee, -'.

    H0ollo, &7.

    (rief for t!e Accused-Appellant, %6-%.

    ''bid., %8-%%.

    %8/eople vs. a5areno, (8 :"RA ( =%'HH>B /eople vs. Go io, Jr., %6 :"RA 6F( =%'(7>B/eople vs. Ro+o, %H& :"RA %%'.

    %%2:, June %8, %'((, &-7.

    %6Ori#inal Record, "riinal "ase o. III-&8%, '-%8.

    %F'bid., "riinal "ase o. III-&88, 7-H.

    %2:, :epte1er 6(, %'((, H, %F.

    %&/eople vs. *an5a, ' :"RA 7%F =%'H'>B:ec. FH, Rule %F8, Rules of "ourt.

    %7/eople vs. Aniel, et al., '7 :"RA %'' =%'(8>B /eople vs. Ola, %&6 :"RA % =%'(H>.

    %H2:, June %8, %'((, 7.

    %(2:, :epte1er 6(, %'((, &.

    %'2:, Marc! %7, %'(', 6-6&B Ma$ 6, %'(', 6-6%.

    68/eople vs. Drilon, et al., %6F :"RA H6 =%'(F>B /eople vs. Martine5, %6H :"RA 678 =%'(>.

    6%/eople vs. :osin#, %%% :"RA F7( =%'(6>.

    66/eople vs. Realon, et al., '' :"RA 66 =%'(8>.

    6F/eople vs. enavide5, et al., %6H :"RA %(( =%'(>.

    6Ori#inal Record, "riinal "ase o. III-'', '6-'F.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt24
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    26/43

    6&'bid. 'd. %%&-%%H.

    67SeeU.:. vs. Ale#ado, 6& /!il. &%8 =%'%F>.

    6H/eople vs. Estocada, et al., H& :"RA 6'& =%'HH>B /eople vs. Realon, et al., supra.

    6(2:, Marc! %7, %'(', %(&-%(7.

    6'/eople vs. :adie, %' :"RA 68 =%'(H>.

    2!e *a)p!il /ro+ect - Arellano *a) oundation

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_90191_96_1991.html#fnt29
  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    27/43

    Repu1lic of t!e /!ilippinesSUPREE 0OURTManila

    :E"OD DII:IO

    G. R. No. L#7#19 S*p(**r 13, 19%%

    DELFIN ORODIO, petitioner,vs.HONORA"LE 0OURT OF APPEALS -) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

    $enigno (. (ulmano for petitioner.

    The Solicitor General for respondents.

    SARIENTO, J.:

    2!e petitioner, Delfin Orodio, to#et!er )it! t!e 1rot!ers An#el O1edo5a and Manuel O1edo5a, )ereconvicted of t!e crie of urder 1$ t!e t!en "ourt of irst Instance of *a Union =ranc! I>, 1ased ont!e Inforation 1Cuoted !ereunder

    2!at on or a1out t!e %(t! da$ of June, %'H&, in t!e Municipalit$ of :antol, /rovinceof *a Union, /!ilippines, and )it!in t!e +urisdiction of t!is 0onora1le "ourt, t!ea1ove-naed accused, 1ein# t!en ared )it! a firear, conspirin# andconfederatin# )it! eac! ot!er and utuall$ !elpin# one anot!er, )it!out +ustifia1lecause, and )it! deli1erate intent to ill, did t!en and t!ere, upon !avin# stood ina1us!, )illfull$, unla)full$ and feloniousl$, 1$ eans of treac!er$ and )it! evidentpreeditation, attac, s!ot and !it 1$ eans of a firear MAR"E*IO 2URA*A,inflictin# upon !i #uns!ot )ounds in several parts of !is 1od$, perforatin# severalinternal or#ans and tissues )!ic! directl$ caused !eorr!a#e, s!oc, secondar$ to)ounds at t!e !eart and lun#s resultin# to t!e deat! of said victi soon t!ereafter tot!e pre+udice and daa#e of !is !eirs.

    "O2RARY to Article 6( of t!e Revised /enal "ode as aended.

    Unsatisfied )it! t!e Jud#ent of t!e trial court, 2all t!e accused elevated t!eir case to t!e "ourt ofAppeals. 0o)ever, durin# t!e pendenc$ of t!eir appeal, Manuel and An#el O1edo5a )it!dre) it, t!ere1$leavin# onl$ t!e appeal of t!e petitioner to tae its due course.

    E;cept for a odification of t!e penalt$, t!e respondent "ourt of Appeals affired t!e convinction oft!e petitioner. o) 1efore us is t!e appeal, 1$ )a$ of a petition for revie) on certiorari, of t!eassailed decision, t!e dispositive portion of )!ic! reads as follo)s

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    28/43

    In vie) of all t!e fore#oin#, )e found t!e #uilt of t!e appellant of t!e crie c!ar#edproven 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t. @e also a#ree )it! t!e :olicitor General t!at,t!ere 1ein# no odif$in# circustances present in t!e coission of t!e crie, t!eiposa1le penalt$ s!ould 1e 9reclusion perpetua9 )!ic! is t!e ediu period of t!epenalt$ iposed for urder =Art. 6(, R./.".>. 2!e appellant s!ould also 1e entitledto four-fift!s of !is preventive detention, t!ere 1ein# no proof t!at !e !ad a#reed to

    a1ide 1$ t!e sae disciplinar$ rules iposed upon convicted prisoners.

    @0EREORE, )it! t!e odification a1ove indicated, t!e decision appealed fro is!ere1$ affired. @it! costs a#ainst t!e appellant.

    :O ORDERED. 3

    2!e pertinent facts supported 1$ t!e evidence are suari5ed as follo)s

    At a1out si; o?cloc in t!e ornin# of June %(,%'H&, at "oroo$, :antol, *a Union, Marceliano 2ural1a)as on !is )a$ to t!e fields carr$in# a plo) on !is s!oulder, follo)ed 1$ !is dau#!ter, lorie, and !is)ife, 0erini#ilda. =lorie )ould tae a 1at! 1$ t!e )ell. 0erini#ilda )as under instruction of !er

    !us1and to follo) !i al)a$s )!erever !e )ould #o 1ecause soeone )as t!reatenin# !is life.4

    >@!ile t!e$ )ere )alin# alon# a trail, 0erini#ilda sa) An#el O1edo5a, a1out ten eters a)a$, pointin#a lon# firear at !er !us1and, )!ic! propted !er to s!out 9An#el is #oin# to s!oot $ou.9 #ut it )as allfor nau#!t as t!e s!ot )as fired nonet!eless !ittin# !er !us1and )!o instantl$ sluped to t!e#round.$As lorie turned !er !ead to)ard t!e sound of #uns!ot, s!e sa) An#el O1edo5a !oldin# a lon#firear in t!e copan$ of !is older 1rot!er, Manuel, and Delfin Orodio. 72!e presence of An#el?s t)ocopanions )as also noticed 1$ 0erini#ilda. %2!en, t!e t!ree =Manuel, An#el, and Delfin> fled indifferent directions. 9Moents later, after severel$ )ounded Marceliano )as carried 1ac to !is !oe, !edied. 1&In t!e autops$ e;aination conducted 1$ Dr. U1un#en ri#!t inside t!e !ouse of t!e victi, si;rounded pellets )ere e;tracted fro !is 1od$. 11apparentl$ coin# fro a s!ot#un cartrid#e.

    2!e petitioner no) ar#ues t!at

    %. 2!e "ourt of Appeals erred in convictin# !i 1ased solel$ on t!e alle#ed e;istenceof conspirac$ aon# t!e accused cused O1edo5a 1rot!ers and !i, sipl$ 1ecauseof !is passive presence at or near t!e scene of t!e crie as )ell as t!e alle#edoral support provided and oral ascendanc$ e;erted 1$ !i over t!e #un )ielderinto coittin# t!e crie.

    6. 2!e "ourt of Appeals erred in not appreciatin# in !is favor t!e iti#atin#circustance of voluntar$ surrender, assuin# t!e correctness of its decision. 12

    2!e respondent "ourt of Appeals passed su1-silencio on t!e first su1ission of t!e petitioner t!att!e conspirac$ found 1$ t!e trial court is not supported 1$ proof and la), 1ut onl$ 1$ presuptions orcon+ectures. 13O1viousl$, t!e respondent court !as adopted t!e t!eor$ of iplied conspirac$ up!eld 1$

    t!e trial court, ot!er)ise t!e decision of t!e respondent court )ould not !ave an$ factual or le#al 1asis asto t!e petitioner, t!ere 1ein# no proof of !is participation in t!e s!ootin# aside fro !is presence near t!escene of t!e crie and runnin# a)a$ t!erefro, disputed to 1e sure, 1ut findin#s nonet!eless.

    On t!e ot!er !and, t!e trial court dealt )it! t!e issue of conspirac$ !ead on, declarin# its e;istence1$ and aon# t!e O1edo5a 1rot!ers and t!e petitioner. e t!at as it a$, in convictin# t!e t!ree oft!e, t!e trial court correctl$ re-stated t!e prevailin# doctrine t!at active or direct participation in t!eactual coission of t!e crie is not necessar$ to convict an accused as a co-conspirator."itin# (eople "s. Cortez, 14t!e trial court declared, lie)ise accuratel$, t!at it is enou#! t!at t!e accused

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    29/43

    perfors an overt act in furt!erance of t!e conspirac$ eit!er 1$ activel$ participatin# in t!e actualcoission of t!e crie, or 1$ lendin# oral assistance to !is co-conspirators 1$ 1ein# present at t!escene of t!e crie, or 1$ e;ertin# oral ascendanc$ over t!e rest of t!e co-conspirators as to ove t!eto e;ecutin# t!e conspirac$. "onseCuentl$, t!e trial court said t!at )!ile onl$ An#el fired at t!e victi )it!a s!ot#un, resultin# to !is deat!, t!e !ard fact of t!e atter reains t!at Manuel and t!e petitioner )ereactuall$ present and controlled t!e coission of t!e crie. Manuel and t!e petitioner )ere t!ree =F>eters apart fro eac! ot!er and onl$ a1out ten =%8> eters a)a$ fro An#el )!en t!e latter fired atMarceliano. 2!e presence of Manuel and t!e petitioner at t!e scene of t!e crie )it! An#el, t!e #unan,)as not e;plained, ipu#ned, or disputed 1$ t!e defense e;cept 1$ t!eir denial of t!e c!ar#e to#et!er)it! t!eir defense of ali1i, )!ic! t!e trial court re+ected. It !eld t!at t!ere is no #ood and valid reason )!$Manuel and t!e petitioner )ere present )it! An#el at t!e scene of t!e crie on t!at ver$ earl$ ornin# ofJune %(, %'H&, e;cept, t!e +ud#e surised, to lend oral support to t!eir $oun#est co-conspirator )!o,)e reiterate, alone did t!e s!ootin#. "onspirac$ is su1stantiated, accordin# to t!e trial court, 1$ t!e factt!at Manuel !as t!at coandin# po)er of oral ascendanc$ over !is four $ears !is +unior. On t!e ot!er!and, as vie)ed 1$ t!e trial court, Delfin appears to 1e not onl$ a fat!er to !is co-accused An#el in pointof a#e, 1ein# a1out 8 $ears old at t!e tie of t!e incident, )!o could !ave easil$ asserted !is oralascendanc$ over t!e 66-$ear old An#el, 1ut also possessed of t!e doinatin# and dan#erous po)er over!is co-conspirator for, it is claied, t!e petitioner is a professional cold-1looded iller previousl$ t!riceconvicted of !oicide. /rescindin# fro t!ese du1ious findin#s and non-seCuitur conclusions, t!e trialcourt ruled t!at conspirac$ )as proven 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t and all t!e t!ree accused )ere

    convicted of urder.

    @e disa#ree.

    As a1ove adverted to, in affirin# t!e Jud#ent of t!e trial court, t!e respondent court did notsCuarel$ pass upon t!e issue of conspirac$. 2!e onl$ circustances t!at see to !ave persuadedt!e respondent court in affirin# t!at a conspirac$ e;isted are t!e fact of petitioner?s presence at ornear t!e scene )!ere t!e late Marceliano 2ural1a )as s!ot 1$ An#el O1edo5a and t!e fact ofsiultaneous fli#!t of t!e petitioner and t!e O1edo5a 1rot!ers fro t!e scene of t!e crie. o)!erein t!e respondent court?s decision do )e find ention of an$ ot!er act of t!e petitioner t!at a$ 1econstrued as an o"ert actin t!e furt!erance of a conspirac$. A1sent suc! an evidentiar$ 1asis, )ecan not accept t!e findin# of iplied conspirac$. 2!e conclusion of t!e trial court is 1ased on

    su1+ective considerations, not to positive and convincin# evidence.

    A conspirac$ e;ists )!en t)o or ore persons coe to an a#reeent concernin# t!e coission ofa felon$ and decide to coit it. 1#It is fundaental for conspirac$ to e;ist t!at t!ere ust 1e unit$ ofpurpose and unit$ in t!e e;ecution of t!e unla)ful o1+ective.1$

    Direct proof is not essential to esta1lis! conspirac$. 17:ince 1$ its nature, conspirac$ is planned inutost secrec$ it can rarel$ 1e proved 1$ direct evidence. 1%"onseCuentl$, t!e presence of t!econcurrence of inds )!ic! is involved in conspirac$, a$ 1e inferred fro proof of facts andcircustances )!ic!, taen to#et!er apparentl$ indicate t!at t!e$ are erel$ parts of soe coplete)!ole. If it is prove t!at t)o or ore persons aied 1$ t!eir acts to)ards t!e accoplis!ent of t!e saeunla)ful o1+ect, eac! doin# a part so t!at t!eir acts, t!ou#! apparentl$ independent, )ere in factconnected and cooperative, indicatin# a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of

    sentient, a conspirac$ a$ 1e inferred t!ou#! no actual eetin# aon# t!e to concert eans isproved. 192!at )ould 1e tered an iplied conspirac$.

    evert!eless, ere no)led#e, acCuiescence, or approval of t!e act, )it!out cooperation ora#reeent to cooperate, is not enou#! to constitute one a part$ to a conspirac$, 1ut t!at t!ere ust1e intentional participation in t!e transaction )it! a vie) to t!e furt!erance of t!e coon desi#nand purpose. 2&"onspirac$ ust 1e esta1lis!ed, not 1$ con+ectures, 1ut 1$ positive and conclusiveevidence. 21In fact, t!e sae de#ree of proof necessar$ to esta1lis! t!e crie is reCuired to support afindin# of t!e presence of a criinal conspirac$, )!ic! is, proof 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t. 22

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    30/43

    In t!e case at 1ar, even if t!e findin# as re#ards t!e presence of t!e petitioner at or near t!e scene)!ere t!e late Marceliano 2ural1a )as s!ot 1$ An#el )ere accurate, t!e petitioner contends t!atere passive presence at t!e scene of t!e crie does not of itself constitute sufficient 1asis forconcludin# t!at !e )as in conspirac$ )it! An#el O1edo5a )!o )as t!e actual perpetrator of t!ecrie.

    @e find eritorious t!e su1ission of t!e petitioner. 2!e presence of t!e petitioner at t!e scene)!en t!e crie )as perpetrated is not 1$ itself indicative of t!e e;istence of conspirac$ 1et)een !iand An#el or )it! Manuel, or, for t!at atter, 1$ and aon# t!e t!ree of t!e. 2!e petitioner ust1e s!o)n to !ave !ad #uilt$ participation in t!e criinal desi#n entertained 1$ t!e sla$er, An#el. 23Ina lon# line of decisions, t!is "ourt !as !eld t!at ere presence at t!e scene of t!e crie, )it!out ore,does not ipl$ conspirac$. 24

    2!e evidence for t!e prosecution does not reveal an$ proof aside fro !is ere passive presence att!e scene of t!e crie, upon )!ic! to 1ase t!e trial court?s conclusion t!at t!e petitioner providedoral support to and e;erted oral ascendanc$ over !is so-called co-conspirators as to ove t!eto e;ecute t!e putative conspirac$.

    2!e trial court?s findin#, affired 1$ t!e respondent court, t!at t!e petitioner e;erted oralascendanc$ over t!e #un-)ielder, An#el O1edo5a, 1ased on t!e fact t!at t!e forer could !ave1een a fat!er, in point of a#e, of t!e latter, and even addin# t!e fact t!at t!e petitioner is a convictediller and a recidivist, is purel$ speculative and devoid of an$ le#al 1asis. It is true t!at t!e petitioneris a recidivist. 0e candidl$ aditted, in t!e course of !is testion$, t!at !e !ad +ust 1een convictedof triple !oicide and !ad alread$ 1e#an to serve !is sentence. 2#It )ould indeed 1e proper for us toappreciate recidivis as a #eneric a##ravatin# circustance s!ould t!ere 1e a conviction in t!is case.ut, fro our vie) of t!e evidence, it !as not 1een convincin#l$ esta1lis!ed t!at t!e petitioner cooperatedin t!e coission of t!e offense, eit!er orall$, t!rou#! advice, encoura#eent, or a#reeent, orateriall$, t!rou#! e;ternal acts indicatin# a anifest intent of suppl$in# aid in t!e perpetration of t!ecrie in an efficacious )a$. 2$2!e petitioner did not tae an$ active part in t!e perpetration of t!e offensenor )as !e !eard to !ave uttered an$t!in#. :uc! 1ein# t!e case, !is ere passive and ute presence att!e scene of t!e crie does not ae !i eit!er a co-principal or accoplice in t!e coission of t!e

    offense,

    27

    no atter !o) criinal !is ind i#!t 1e, or, no atter !o) an$ convictions of urder !ei#!t !ave.

    urt!erore, as correctl$ stated 1$ t!e petitioner, t!e trial court?s declaration in its Jud#ent t!atoral ascendanc$ )as e;erted 1$ t!e petitioner over t!e #un-)ielder, An#el O1edo5a, is founded ona )ron# preise, t!at is, t!e e;istence of a conspirac$ )!ere t!e petitioner is a co-conspirator. 2%"onspirac$ presupposes t!e presence of a preconceived plan or a#reeent. In order toesta1lis! suc! a plan or a#reeent, it is not enou#! t!at t!e persons supposedl$ en#a#ed or connected)it! t!e sae 1e present )!en t!e crie )as perpetrated. 2!ere ust 1e esta1lis!ed a lo#icalrelations!ip 1et)een t!e coission of t!e crie and t!e supposed conspirators, evidencin# a clear andore intiate connection 1et)een and aon# t!e latter, suc! as 1$ t!eir overt acts coitted inpursuance of a coon desi#n. 29

    2!e fact t!at t!e petitioner fled fro t!e scene after t!e s!ootin# does not suffice to prove t!econspirac$ t!ere 1ein# no evidence to convince us t!at !is runnin# a)a$ fro t!e scene !ad 1eeninter)oven )it! a pre-conceived plan or a#reeent to ill t!e victi. ear of iplication in t!e criecould !ave 1een a plausi1le reason for t!e petitioner?s act of fleein#.

    At t!e ris of 1ein# repetitious, t!ere is a total a1sence of evidence to s!o) an$ previous plan ora#reeent 1et)een t!e O1edo5a 1rot!ers and t!e petitioner to ill t!e victi. ECuall$ )antin# isproof t!at t!e acts of t!e petitioner steed fro a prior plan or desi#n to ill t!e victi. "riinal

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    31/43

    conspirac$ ust 1e esta1lis!ed 1$ positive evidence, and conviction ust 1e founded on facts, noton ere inferences and presuptions. 3&

    $ and lar#e, t!e evidence on record fails to satisf$ t!e reCuireent of oral certaint$ needed to!old t!e petitioner #uilt$ of t!e c!ar#e as a co-conspirator. or it is onl$ 1$ proof 1e$ond reasona1ledou1t, )!ic! reCuires oral certaint$-a certaint$ t!at convinces and satisfies t!e reason and

    conscience of t!ose )!o are to act upon it a$ t!e presuption of innocence 1e overcoe. 31

    @0EREORE, t!e decision appealed fro is !ere1$ REER:ED and t!e petitioner, Delfin Orodio $alde5, is A"4UI22ED for lac of proof 1e$ond reasona1le dou1t. o costs.

    :O ORDERED.

    (aras and (adilla ##. concur.

    S*p-r-(* Opi)io)+

    ELEN0IOHERRERA, J., concurrin#

    I concur in t!e a1sence of adeCuate evidence to esta1lis! oral ascendanc$ 1$ petitioner over t!e#un-)ielder.

    0egalado #. too1 no part.

    S*p-r-(* Opi)io)+

    ELEN0IOHERRERA, J., concurrin#

    I concur in t!e a1sence of adeCuate evidence to esta1lis! oral ascendanc$ 1$ petitioner over t!e#un-)ielder.

    0egalado #. too1 no part.

    Foo()o(*+

    % Ori#inal Record, F7.

    6 Rendered 1$ Jud#e An#el A. DaCui#an, Rollo, p. %-7H.

    F usran Maa D., J.B illasor, Guillero /. and Melo, Jose A.R., JJ.

  • 7/26/2019 Jurisprudence Conspiracy

    32/43

    2.s.n., session of Ma$ %', %'H7, F-B 2.s.n., session of Marc! %7, %'H7, &-H.

    & 'd., session of Ma$ %', %'H7, &, H.

    7 'd., 2.s.n., session of Marc! %7, %'H7, (.

    H 2.s.n., session of Marc! %7, %'H7, (.

    ( 2.s.n., session of Ma$ %', %'H7, (.

    ' 'd.B 2.s.n., session of Marc! %7, %'H7, %6.

    %8 'd., %B 'd., '.

    %% 2.s.n., session of Au#ust %6, %'H7, &-'.

    %6 /etition for Revie), &B Rollo, 6F.

    %F rief or Accused-Appellant Delfin Orodio in t!e "ourt of Appeals, "A Rollo,&(=68>.

    % *-F%%87, Ma$ F%, %'H.

    %& Art. (, Revised /enal "odeB /eople vs. Ro+as, et al., os. *-7'78-76, Januar$ (,%'(H.

    %7 /eople vs. autista, et al., o. *-F%'88, Au#ust 7, %'H'.

    %H /eople vs. :aavedra, o. *-(HF(, Ma$ %(,%'(HB i5conde vs. Interediate

    Appellate "ourt, o. H6F%, April %8, %'(HB /eople vs. 2ala, o. 7'%&F-&, Januar$F8, %'(7B /eople vs. E1ora, et al., o. F%8%F, e1ruar$ %8, %'(7B /eople vs.illanueva, o. *-F66H, April 6, %'(B /eople vs. /ue1las, o. *-F6(&', e1ruar$6, %'(B /eople vs. illason, o, *-F(68(, Jul$ F8, %'(6.

    %( /eople vs. /eralta, et al., *-%'87', Octo1er 6', %'7(.

    %' /eople vs. /eralta, supra, citin# /eople vs. "ar1onel, ( /!il. (7( =%'67